Integrating NatCom/CC intoFSM Strategic Development Plan

(SDP/IDP)

CGE Workshop on Exchange of Experiences & Good Practices among NAI NatComs & on Cross-cutting Issues

Cairo, Egypt, 20-22 September 2007

Joseph M. KonnoFSM CC Country Team

Content

• Content & Overview

• Process of Integration

• Sectors “Climate Proofed” in SDP/IDP

• Critical Success Factors

• Barriers and Constraints

• Key Lessons learned

Federated States of Micronesia

• 607 Islands• 4 States• Total area

over 3 million sq. km.

• Total Land Area= 4,840 sq. km.

• Atolls to 791 meters above sea level

• Population (2000) =107,000

Overview of Integration• Initial NatCom (October 1999)

– National Climate Policy that entails a response Strategy that address impacts & sources of climate change:

• “Value-Added” benefit of flexible approaches: addressing both adaptation and mitigation, e.g. solar desalination

• Addressing current extreme events (e.g. ENSO) that contributes to building today’s resilience and insights into long-term V&A to CC

• Integration of traditional knowledge and practices into SDP for responding to CC, e.g. traditional resource management

• ADB Climate Change Adaptation in Pacific (CLIMAP)– Integrating CC at three levels (project, community, SDP)

• 2nd NatCom (Recruitment for SNC Coordinator)– Will build upon existing policies – 5th Year Review of SDP/IDP (2008)

Reflecting Climate Risks in Infrastructure Design and Local

Level Decision MakingDemonstrated by

“Climate Proofing” the Kosrae Road

Reflecting Climate Risks in Landuse Planning, Regulations and Permitting

Demonstrated by“Climate Proofing”

Sapwohn Village, Sokehs

Reflecting Climate Risks in National Development Planning

Demonstrated by“Climate Proofing” FSM’s

National Strategic Development Plans

Immediate, Project Level

Long Term, N

ational Level

“Cimate Proofed” D

evelopment Enabling Environment

Process of Integrating CC into FSM’s Infrastructure, Communities, and SDP/IDP (ADB CLIMAP)

“Climate Proofing” is shortand for

reducing, to acceptable levels, the risks due to climate

variability and change, including extreme events

Integration of CC into National Strategic Development Plan/Infrastructure Development Plan

INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR• “… Infrastructure designed, located, built

and maintained to avoid unacceptable risks to infrastructure associated with natural hazards, including weather and climate extremes, variability and change.”

• “… Conduct risk assessments at state level and develop national- and state-level guidelines to ensure risks to infrastructure development projects are identified and addressed in a cost effective manner at the design stage.”

National Strategic

Development Plan

Sectors Continue…….

• Environment Sector– Mainstream environmental considerations,

including climate change, in economic development

– “….Strategies and plans that address unacceptable risks to the natural environment and built assets, including those arising from natural hazards such as weather and climate extremes, variability and change.”

Integrating Climate Change into Building Code & EIA Regulations

• Allow for surface flooding as a result of hourly rainfall intensities of at least 400 mm (such an event has a projected return period of 25 years in 2050);

• Allow for possibility of wind gusts exceeding 130 mph (this event has a projected return period of 25 years in 2050; current practice is to use 120 mph as the design wind speed).

• Climate Change Impacts & Adaptations have been incorporated in to existing EIA Regulations, Land Use Plans and Health Regulations and other permitting process

Environmental Sector……..

• “Develop and implement integrated environmental and resource management objectives that enhance resilience of coastal and other ecosystems to natural hazards such as those associated with extreme weather events, climate change, high tides and sea-level rise.”

• Determine impact of climate change on the tuna industry as a result of such effects as changed migration patterns of Pacific tuna stocks, and implement strategies to minimize impacts on this important industry.”

• “……. All the Federated States of Micronesia communities will develop and implement risk reduction strategies to address natural hazards such as those related to current weather and climate extremes and variability, while at the same time preparing for anticipated impacts of climate change.”

Health Sector

• “……. Climate variability and change, including sea-level rise, are important determinants of health and of growing concern in the Federated States of Micronesia ….”

• “…..Potential health impacts which have been identified include: vector-borne diseases (such as dengue fever and malaria), water-borne diseases (such as viral and bacterial diarrhoea), diseases related to toxic algae (such as ciguatera fish poisoning which is important in the Federated States of Micronesia where the protein source is predominantly fish), food-borne diseases, food security and nutrition, heat stress, air pollution, and extreme weather and climate events….”

Status of SDP

• Adopted during FSM 3rd Economic Summit held March 28-April 2, 2004

• Passed and signed in to law by FSM National Congress

• It is now the guiding document for the Country for the next 20 years.

• 5th Year Review in 2008

Critical Success Factors• Timing

– Integration of CC into SDP must match the preparation or review time of such documents

• Real Examples– It is easier for policymakers to understand issues when given

with real-time examples (e.g. Kosrae Road Project)

• Quantifying Costs and Benefits– Policymakers get convinced easily when presented with

cost-benefits figures (e.g. Road Project)

• Consultations at all levels– Having everybody (individual/community/policy) involved

from the beginning makes everybody understands and therefore supports integration into national/state/community plans

Barriers & Constraints• Institutionalization of CC:

– Climate Change has not taken root at the National and State Levels (too many hats)

• Data– Lack of, and accessibility to critical data is a challenge

• Geographical Distance & Accessibility– FSM is four countries in one….spread over a huge

distance, a challenge in travel, communications and coordination and costs

• Limited Experts and Costs for Outside Experts– Need to expand risk assessment to other areas is difficult

Key Lessons Learned• Easy to Integrate but difficult to implement

– Incorporating CC in National Plans is much easier than implementing. and downscaling down to state and local levels

• Downscaling and Project Formulation– National Policies (CC) need to be reflected in local plans and

into actual on the ground projects

• Technical people need to understand– Technical individuals (engineers, planners, ) lack the

information and training to properly implement specific requirements of policies

• Finance for additional costs need to match local timing– Identified additional costs are not available at the required

local time for projects implementation timing.